data_inspect

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation, and 'bounded previews' hints at a limitation, but details like permission requirements, exact preview bounds, and whether data is modified are not disclosed. It provides minimal but non-contradictory behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that starts with the action verb and lists the scope efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler. It is appropriately sized given the tool's straightforward purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally. However, parameter semantics and usage guidelines are absent, and the description is too terse to compensate for the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage. It meets the minimum for a simple inspection tool but leaves notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (data_path, variables, preview_rows, project_path). It lists high-level capabilities but fails to map them to parameters, leaving the agent without necessary guidance for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb 'Inspect' with a clear resource and enumerated scope (metadata, missingness, labels, bounded previews). This makes the basic purpose evident, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_data_info, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (when you need dataset inspection), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_data_info. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.